Re: [hypermail] getting the hypermail project on its feet again

From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se_at_hypermail-project.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:06:40 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0101111645210.9538-100000_at_pm1.contactor.se>

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Larry W. Virden wrote:

> Every project I've seen move to sourceforge has suffered. Users can't
> get to the code, cvs is up and down, bug databases aren't updated, etc.

I don't have that experience. But that's not the point here IMHO. We do have those problems without SF too, since we're on volountary basis with donated resources.

> There is a mix of problems with using sourceforge - the number one
> problem is that because it is more visible, it becomes even more critical
> that someone manages the project actively. If hypermail is having a
> problem getting time from its manager today, moving to sourceforge is
> going to kill it completely...

Why do you say "it becomes even more critical that someone manages the project actively" just because it is on SF? Have a look-around, the average project on SF is dead. Without description, without people, nothing.

I don't think putting a project in the care of SF is a solution to all problems, but it certainly opens up for better collaboration. We would get easier distributed responsibility.

If we agree that one of the problems today is that the web site is not actively updated and that is because Kent is the editor and he's quite busy with other things. Putting hypermail on SF would solve the problem of who's gonna be allowed to edit the pages.

Similarly, we'd get a team of administrators to take care of things instead of being dependent on single individuals.

I don't think the key issue is about going SF or not, although it could be a good opportunity to do several changes at the same time.

-- 
      Daniel Stenberg - http://daniel.haxx.se - +46-705-44 31 77
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol

Received on Thu 11 Jan 2001 06:12:23 PM GMT